A Study on Regional DSL and Cable Speeds?

antarctican asks: "I'm curious about the typical speed DSL and Cable users get. I see references in various /. articles to speeds such as 128k for DSL connections, to me that seems discustingly slow. Here in British Columbia, Canada a speed of 2-4Mbps for a DSL line (ranging from ~$40-100/month) is the norm, and is easily available in all the major centres. Why are American cable and DSL speeds so low, and where is this artificial limit coming from? It's obviously not the technology!" I don't know that American DSL is necessarily slower than that or not. Your location will greatly affect the kind of broadband access that you can posess, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some American markets which are as fast, if not faster than 4Mbps. How fast are DSL and Cable lines in your area? Maybe someone can use this information to update the broadband availability charts that are available at various places on the 'net.

Comments

Re:Based on....?

[ewhac]

Believe it or not, the issue of units naming for bits and bytes has been addressed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Though the unit names are not officially part of SI (Systeme Internationale), and the chosen names are unfamiliar, they make a good starting point.

Schwab

Re:Copper wire?

[Mr Z]

There are several factors that come into play:

• Changes in wire type/gauge. Every time you change gauge in wire, you potentially have an impedance mismatch which can cause reflections on the line. These reflections cause certain frequencies (well above human hearing range, but smack-dab in the middle of the DSL frequency range) to be attenuated or altogether canceled out.

• Related to this are stubs. Often times, a single line pair leaving a junction box is spliced somewhere along the way and actually goes to two destinations -- one live, one not. This could happen for a variety of reasons, typically due to changes in service at residences near each other. Each stub also causes reflections (worse than those reflections caused by changes in wire gauge), and so this too frustrates DSL service.

• Line filters. Strictly speaking, line filters aren't necessary until well down the line, where your voice-band data is converted to digital, or is analog-multiplexed with other signals on a line. To reduce crosstalk and noise (apparently), most POTS lines have line filters closer to the home so only voiceband energy is on the line. These kill DSL dead, as you noted.

• Loading coils. On some longer runs out there, loading coils are on the lines to help even out the response curve of the line in the voice band, in part by absorbing reflections. These totally screw up the frequency bands outside the voice band though.

• And finally, from what I recall, upper frequences attenuate fairly sharply with distance on unshielded copper, and so the further away you get, the fewer usable frequencies you have to play with.

So, yes, there are a lot of problems as you go from the CO to the end terminal. Some of these problems are in the last mile (changes in wire gauge, stubs) and some are along the way (loading coils).

--Joe
--

Re:some cable questions

[FallLine]

Well I've had comcast @ home, out of philly, for the past 3 years now and mines basically always been blazing fast in the downstream. I still regularly pull 500kilobyte/s downloads. Sometimes I run simultaneous transfers and pull at least 1 megabyte/s. In other words, your friends aren't too far off the mark. I also get killer pings in Quake, Counter-Strike, etc. In CS I average 15-30 ms to my preferred servers. That being said, the upstream is pretty weak. It tops out at about 50kilobyte/s (these days) and when I do, it absolutely kills my downstream capacity and pings.

As for the relative worth of cable versus DSL, that depends largely on the two providers. That being said, it's been my experience, empirically speaking, that cable tends to be faster than DSL. Although it is true, from a technical standpoint, that cable modems "share bandwidth", this is only unique in that it does it at the headend. In other words, you're sharing bandwidth with people in your immediate neighborhood. However, DSL also shares bandwidth in numerous places, but especially once you start approaching the fiber/upstream. This is where it can really get expensive, and most ISPs tend to oversubscribe these by a very large ratio. Many DSL users do, in fact, get absolutely crappy bandwidth because of this. @home, on the other hand, has truely superb routing, even if they can't run a mail server if their life depended on it.

The economics just aren't there for fast DSL, typically, at a mere ~40 dollars a month, unlike cable modem through a large provider like @home. If you're willing to pay a hefty fee for DSL, you can probably get a truely fast connection, but it's unlikely you'll get an honest to god faster DSL connection (especially with Verizon) than comcast@home for a mere 40 dollars a month. Especially since the even the quoted rates for DSL at any reasonable price is a mere fraction of what I and so many others regularly pull with cable from @home (and a couple others).

128Kbps or 128KBps?

[helarno]

I see references in various /. articles to speeds such as 128k for DSL connections, to me that seems discustingly slow. Here in British Columbia, Canada a speed of 2-4Mbps for a DSL line (ranging from ~$40-100/month) is the norm, and is easily available in all the major centres

I believe you're confusing 128KBytes per second with 128Kbits per second. Big difference. 128KBps is 128*8 = 1 Mbps, which isn't THAT far off from the Canadian numbers. Note that a T1 is 1.5Mbps

DSL speeds are physically limited by the length of the wiring from your home to the DSL provider's modem. The further away you are, the longer it takes for the signal to propagate and the greater the signal degradation. Using Ethernet cabling as an example (I don't have DSL numbers handy) if you used 10Mbps Ethernet, you could have 2,500 feet between the computers linked together. If you boosted the speed to 100Mbps, your computers could then only be 250 ft apart.

I live in the Boston, USA area and regularly get 1.5Mbps from both cable and DSL. It is possible to get higher DSL speeds (up to a theoretical 7Mbps) if you pay more and are conveniently located very close to a box.

However, most companies here advertise 1.5Mbps because that is the speed they can get to most consumers. It makes for much easier billing and logistics (you know, those non-technical limitations.) If you want higher speeds, be prepared to pay through the nose for it.

My cable modem speeds.

[mjh]

I have never qualified for DSL at my house. I have cable modem. I've heard a lot of people, mostly DSL providers, telling me that cable modem will always be slower than DSL, and after almost 30 months with cable modem, I'm convinced that the DSL providers are full of it.

Now I don't claim to know that DSL is slow. I have no idea, I've never had it at my house. But cable ain't slow. My cable modem provider has put a 12MB file for download at their central site. This download is directly at the other end of the cable infrastructure, so downloading this file is a good test of the cable infrastructure. Armed with linux (as the only OS in my household thank you very much) I set up a cron job to download this file every 30 minutes and report the results.

During the first 21 months or so, I got between 600 and 700 kBytes/s (i.e. 4.8 - 5.6 Mbits/s). Then at about 21 months, roadrunner installed a bandwidth cap, and since then I've gotten between 240 kBytes/s (1.9 Mbits/s) and 260 kBytes/s (2.0 Mbits/s).

After almost 30 months of continuous testing, I have NEVER seen the alleged slow downs that are supposed to come because the cable infrastructure is shared. And it isn't for lack of subscribers in my neighborhood! There are 4 people that I know have it on my culdesac alone!

Now, of course, it's a whole different ball of wax when I try to go to the Internet in general. There I get wildly fluctuating speed variations. (As you would expect) But across the cable infrastructure, I can floor it whenever I want, at any time of day.

My conclusion? I don't know if DSL is slow or not but what Simson Garfinkle said in his salon article is 100% on the money.

And the stuff that the DSL providers tell you about speed is just hogwash. And I'm pretty sure that all the stuff that they tell you about security is also crap.. although I can't really prove that it's crap.

The only thing that I don't like about cable modem is the lack of competition. I wish there was someone else out there other than roadrunner. Cuz they suck. Their mail server is slow, their response to problems is terrible. I'd love to be able to threaten them with switching to another provider. But hey, what's a monopoly if you don't get to stick it to someone!

DSL v. cable

[alee]

In my experience, unless your ISP artificially throttles back your available bandwidth, most people will find cable to be significantly faster than DSL. The concept of "shared" bandwidth is lost because in the end, everyone's sharing bandwidth from someone (even DSL). I would venture to say that unless you live in a heavy tech corridor, where all your neighbors have cable modem, you will not likely feel the pinch. Additionally, cable appears to be more readily available, and is cheaper than DSL access for the amount of bandwidth you get.

However, in terms of regulation, I think that DSL has been friendlier to the subscribers in terms of allowing VPNs and allowing you to run your own servers. A lot of cable broadband providers have really started to crack down on this.

I think speed is only half the issue that is being faced here. It's always nice to pull down a file at speeds over the 1Mbps mark, but with all the rules and regulations, what's the point of having all that bandwidth if you can't use it the way you want?

I'd rather keep my slow 640kbps/90kbps DSL line and be left alone, instead of having an ultra-fast cable modem connection where I can't VPN, can't run a server, and can't have a static IP.

Artificial caps often imposed by the ISP...

[drin]

In many instances (AFAIK) in the US, the provider is imposing artificial caps on rates, particularly upstream. The idea as I understand it is to limit the subscribers' ability to host websites and ftp servers off their DSL or cable connection. @Home was lambasted for this last year (see here for more info), especially after a configuration error at the head-end capped downstream rates!

You can find an international cable modem ISP FAQ with service comparisons here if you're looking for more information. It's dated December, 2000, so take it with a grain of salt.

-drin

Monopoly is why!!!!

[jalewis]

Here in Northern Virginia, Verizon controls the last mile. The rule is, if Verizon doesn't offer it as a service, then other ISP's can't either. Verizon doesn't run DSL if you are too far from the central office, so the ISP can't either.

It pisses me off.

Depends

[Greyfox]

In some places, you can only get DSL over ISDN which limits you to 120kbits/sec, which only slightly sucks less than a 56k analog line.

For DSL areas where this is not the case, you can get up to the megabit range, depending on the distance from your central office. Most ISPs I've seen offer 256K both ways with non-static IPs for $40 a month. You want static IPs so you can run servers, it'll cost you more.

From what I've seen of cable, you usually get around 1.5 mbit downstream with a pretty weak upstream.

I've seen wireless providers start to spring up with speeds ranging anywhere from 64 kbits/sec to 3 mbits/sec. Most of them seem to have a pretty odious set of service terms.

Most solutions not involving static IPs seem to run around $40 a month.

FWIW, when I worked at MCI a few years back, we'd lease you out a T1 line for $1600 a month PLUS Local Loop Charges (Which in some cases would cost you more than the line itself.) Oh and if you weren't a business, they didn't want to talk to you at all, even if you could afford the line.

A more helpful link

[edunbar93]

Go directly here for a listing of ISP's and the speeds they provide. This page also has links to prices on the providers' webpages for more accurate information.

Hope that helps. HAND. :)
---

Low Cost High Speed Internet

[Alien54]

Here is the link to Lariat.org. Their main claim to fame is that they set themselves up as their own ISP, with rates one third of the national average. They want to help other small communities to do the same.

Get enough folks together, and you could have a sweet setup.

It's very simple

[doorbot.com]

Imagine a market where there is one product with many companies selling that product, but there are no competiting products.

In some markets, the companies selling the product will compete with each other in such a way as to both lower the price for the consumer and to actually provide a better product for that price. Let's call this place, Wonderland.

Now, there's another market, let's call it, You-Get-Shafted-Land, the companies do not compete on price/value. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The company/companies sell the only product -- the product itself has no competition, thus you have to buy that one product. The companies realize this and end up following the leader... whoever is the largest company sets their price and everyone else more or less uses that price. Thus, the consumer has a lot of choice of manufacturers/providers, but they are not realizing true "market" prices.

2. One company controls the infrastructure. A local telephone company can charge their competitors (who must use their lines) just enough to keep themselves competitive.

This is the problem with DSL (at least in San Francisco): The DSL providers don't have much competition from cable providers, thus the price/value of DSL has not changed in two years. When I signed up for DSL over two years ago, I signed up for year, fully expecting to be paying "too much" at the end of that term, because prices dropped through the floor while my year contract was in place. Prices actually went up (well, value went down); eg: I got a static IP for free, now they cost extra. Prices did not go down because the DSL providers know everyone wants it (that's fine) but they know that there is no alternative. Why try to undercut your competitor when you can make money selling at their rate? If people want T1 speeds on their DSL (assuming their line supports it), they'd better be ready to pay through the nose for it. I should mention, though, that it is cheaper than frame relay, although far less reliable. I have PacBell DSL, and there is no reason for me to switch to another provider... they all cost more for less service.

Right now, companies would rather charge a lot of money for broadband access, while the market is still relatively young (despite the technology being relatively old in comparison). When DSL starts to get into every home, then the value will increase: economies of scale should kick in. In the meantime, expect companies to charge too much for the current services...

Think of it this way: If you are willing to pay $40 a month for a service (say, 384kbit down/128 kbit up with a dynamic IP), why would they ever offer you T1 speeds for the same price (assuming they could)? Remember, think as the producer, not as the consumer. The question is not "What is best for the consumer?" it is, "How do I make the most profit." And there's nothing wrong with that.

My problem with "modern" DSL is the use of PPPoE and software DSL modems. Why can't we just use bridged connections? The routers are the same, you can still get a DHCP address over it... And software DSL modems are not compatible... WinModems, anyone? Sure, they work on Linux now, but what about other OSes? Why not use existing standards that work, rather than making up your own?

Cablemodem speeds are *NOT* slow

[t14m4t]

I'm currently living in the Charleston, SC area (although I'm moving in a month). I can attest that Cablemodem speeds, at least in this area, are by no means slow.

I have been watching my download rates for no other reason than to see how fast I'm paying for. what I've noticed is this:

.

I have peaked at about 950 kBps (that's in bytes; in bits, it's ~7.6 Mbps).

.

Now, I don't consider myself an expert, but nearly maxing out my 10 Mbps NIC does not seem slow. especially since I'm only paying for 1 Mbps....

Admitedly, the biggest weakness in this claim is the method used to test the speed. What I did was install gkrellm, and just watch to see what was the biggest number I could get. I turned out that while I was downloading the glibc source, it hit 958 kilobytes per second, and this is the largest number I have seen.

However, it is normal for me to see download rates in the range of 600-700 kilobyte per second.

t14m4t

DSL Reports

[CPIMatt]

This information is available from http://www.dslreports.com. It has bandwidth information based on provider provided by actual users, but a wealth of other information including installation experiences and tips about network achitechture. Very cool, check it out.

-Matt

Not just speed

[Bistromat]

I've never heard of such DSL speeds here in Boston, certainly, and my best guess is that the telephone architecture (especially the wiring in houses) is on the average so old (fabric-covered wires instead of twisted-pair) that higher speeds are impossible *in some cases*, so they can't very well offer higher speeds if some of their customers can't take advantage of it. Covad is having enough trouble already, and they certainly don't want the extra hassle of higher speeds.

The other thing, and the more major issue, is *price*. 4 Mbps for $40-$100? And that's probably *CANADIAN* dollars, too. Jebus. I feel ripped-off now.

--nick

There you go again...

[tenzig_112]

There you go again with "In Canada" this and "In Canada" that.

Maybe I want slower DSL speeds so I can savor each packet. Have you ever thought of that, Gordon?

Of course not, you were too busy with your socialized medicine and quasi non-violent prime-time tv programming to think of it.

Perhaps you should consider an alternative explanation: your DSL speeds are just as slow (or slower) than they are in the US of A, but special software makes you think your throughput numbers are better. It's all a clever rouse by the CIA to keep you Kanuks up there where we can keep a good eye on you.

Think it won't work? Somebody convinced you that round ham was "back bacon." I rest my case.

-- Sincerely,
A descent, upstanding American

In Sillicon Valley...

[jo42]

Last year I moved from Toronto, ON to Campbell, CA (small town wedged between Los Gatos, CA and San Jose, CA) - about 15 minutes from the biggest concentration of bandwidth on the whole frickin' planet.

In Canada, I had cable and ADSL (one after the other). Around 1-1.5 Mbps for $40+ CDN a month.

In the US, I tried to get ADSL. No go. Too far away from the CO. Sure I could have 144/144 Kbps IDSL for $125 US a month, but no thanks, too much $$$.

Cable is a no go as well because the whole AT&T cable infrastructure in the San Jose area is about 500 years old and they won't be able to provide the service for between 1 to 5 years from now. But, mind you, I do have digital cable.

This is Silicon Valley, hi-tech mecca of the world - why can't I get high speed Internet access at home???

What did I do? I finally broke down this week and picked up a Ricochet 128 Kbps wireless modem from Fry's. I'm getting 'tween 70-100 Kbps and the best part is I can slap it to my laptop and take it around with me.

There is no 'new' economy, there was no 'new' economy - there is just economy 101 and everyone has to play by its rules - me

We're talking value for $$$

[antarctican]

When I submitted that comment my query was on the value people were getting for their dollar. Not "how far you are from the CO and the speed you get". Just from talking to American friends it seems our plans up here are better, and I'm wondering why. Maybe because the CRTC regulates such things....

Which is kinda funny, the American "free market" screws out the consumers. In the same way the "free market" has let California power prices now skyrocket, this free market is letting you all be screwed by your telephone and cable providors.

My plan currently is $65 for 4Mbps down and 640k up, and 5 IPs. For $40 I can get 2.5Mbps down, 512k up and 2 IPs. Why are the plan so bad down there? And "the network can't handle it" isn't an excuse, why aren't they upgrading the networks? We can obviously handle it. I usually run into no bottlenecks until I reach the server at the far end of the connection.

Anyhow... maybe it's just the exchange rate... 4Mbps up here in 256k down there. =)


antarctican at trams dot ca